Pelini strongly opposes playoff of any sort

If we just go to Conference Champs, I want Nebraska to move to the Big East. We'll go to the playoffs every year.

But that's the problem with ONLY conference champs is that not all conferences are created equal. Boise St. winning the Mountain West every year isn't the same as Ohio State winning the Big Ten every year.

That's why there needs to be a selection committee. Conference champs should get preference, but we can't eliminate other contenders because of differing SOS. However, I think there should be a limit of two teams MAX per conference. If that means two Big XII teams and two SEC teams, I'm cool with that as long as the argument for a second conference team isn't equal to that of a conference winner.

 
knapplc said:
If we just go to Conference Champs, I want Nebraska to move to the Big East. We'll go to the playoffs every year.

But that's the problem with ONLY conference champs is that not all conferences are created equal. Boise St. winning the Mountain West every year isn't the same as Ohio State winning the Big Ten every year.

That's why there needs to be a selection committee. Conference champs should get preference, but we can't eliminate other contenders because of differing SOS. However, I think there should be a limit of two teams MAX per conference. If that means two Big XII teams and two SEC teams, I'm cool with that as long as the argument for a second conference team isn't equal to that of a conference winner.
Click to expand...

I agree. That's why my stance is on 8 teams. I now am saying 5 champs from 5 major conferences and 3 wildcards. Sorry Boise, you winning the mountain west just doesnt cut it. you better be damned good to get one of them wildcards over SEC or Big 10 #'s 2 and or 3. I agree there needs to be a max on teams from a conference. hell, last year the SEC may have squeezed 3 in. I also have a feeling that conference realignment over the next few years will have a major bearing on what will become an everchaning system.

 
knapplc said:
If we just go to Conference Champs, I want Nebraska to move to the Big East. We'll go to the playoffs every year.

But that's the problem with ONLY conference champs is that not all conferences are created equal. Boise St. winning the Mountain West every year isn't the same as Ohio State winning the Big Ten every year.

That's why there needs to be a selection committee. Conference champs should get preference, but we can't eliminate other contenders because of differing SOS. However, I think there should be a limit of two teams MAX per conference. If that means two Big XII teams and two SEC teams, I'm cool with that as long as the argument for a second conference team isn't equal to that of a conference winner.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Winning the Big Least or Mountain West is a long, long ways away from winning the SEC or Big10. Even more so going undefeated.

Many, many fans think cruising through a creampuff schedule should get you into the NC game regardless of a pitiful SOS. I really, really hope it doesn't come to that.

 
Doesn't Bo remember making this remark after the Texas Big 12 Championship game?

"The BCS. That's why they make that call."

 
huskerjock said:
Doesn't Bo remember making this remark after the Texas Big 12 Championship game?

"The BCS. That's why they make that call."
Click to expand...
Exactly. That's why any system, no matter how thought-out it is, that is dependant on selection by computers/poll/committee or whatever is going to be corrupt in some way. There will always be bias. That's why the best way to play it out on the field by awarding conference champs automatice births.

 
...in which case Texas would still have gotten in.

There are not 16 teams deserving of playing for the national title every year. There aren't even 12, or 8, or even 6. A full-blown playoff field is jumping through a lot of hoops that a plus-one would solve fairly neatly and with minimal impact. I love the plus one idea, I just fear that it is inevitable that people will want to keep adding teams and watering down the impact of the regular season. What fan of 9-3 schools wouldn't want to be able to get a shot in at a national trophy?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not seeing a +1 being truly different than what we have now, zoogs. Again, 4 is better than 2, which is better than nothing. The regular season is already diminished with the fact that many teams are already done by late October/early November. Most November games mean squat in the general scheme of things. My assertion is 16 is the best simply for inclusion of conf. champs. I know that won't happen, and neither will 8. That's why I think 4, with a committee, is the likely outcome, and one that will likely get the most agreement. I'm all for that, and I think 8 will happen sooner than later. 16 likely won't happen soon, if ever, but I can at least live with 8, with likely some type of x number of conference champs, and x at-large. Either that, or all selected by committee. Best scenarios we're likely to see, I think, and one that I'm happy to see. I've been waiting for a playoff for a long time. I didn't watch the champ game this last year. Wasn't going to watch what I felt wasn't a proper pairing to begin with. Just happy to see us moving in a direction that will begin to actually decide a true champion in the sport.

 
The regular season isn't diminished in any way right now.

Want to win a title? Be one of the top two teams. You're going to need to win every game. Any loss more than likely takes it out of your hands. +1 is better than nothing because often, the controversy is just about one or two teams that could have had a fighting chance to be #2 but just missed out. Hate the idea of a subjective measure as a committee deciding yearly, though.

 
The regular season IS diminshed right now, though. Because for essentially 95% of the teams, November has become meaningless. Whether or not they win those games doesn't matter. Heck, as it turned out, Okla St. and Stanford both ended up on the outside looking in after only 1 loss. And they ended up on the outside looking in to who? A team that had already lost to the other team in the national title game. And yet, THEY got a second bite of the apple. In other words, the regular season meant SQUAT in determining that. Subjective measure of a committee? You mean like the subjective nature of AP, UPI, ESPN/Coaches, USAToday/Coaches, Harris, to name a few over the years? I don't trust ANY of those polls any further than I trust any of them to vote against their interests in those polls. Which means I don't trust them at all to be 'fair and impartial'. I'll take a committee over polls any day of the week. Truth be told, I like the computer polls better than any human poll out there. The guys doing those seem to be more impartial than most. But even Sagarin has admitted that computer polls are better at judging strength the more information you have to input into them, so even those probably don't give a very accurate reading until deep into the season. Let it be played on the field, as best as it can be. And the best that I can figure that it can be is a playoff. Again, give me 16, 11 conf champs, 5 at large. But that won't happen, and the best we're likely to get to that out of the deal is to let a committee decide who should be in. So be it. I'll take that any day over the system we've had. IMO, worst system by far in terms of choosing a champion in athletics.

And zoogs, if I came off heavy handed in that, I didn't mean to. Just brings out the fiestiness in me. :D

 
Gotta play it out on the field. Alabama was not the best there was last year. If so, they woulda made a couple field goals and won that HOME game against LSU the first time.

 
Stanford wasn't the best team out there either, nor was Okie St. Stanford got blasted at home by Oregon. Okie St got beaten by freaking Iowa St. Why reward those teams for getting beaten by a lesser team? If LSU loses a couple games, somehow Alabama would be deserving, but since LSU swept through their schedule, including Oregon, you penalize Alabama? Makes no sense. How it that playing it out on the field?

I'd accept an automatic spot for an unbeaten major college champ (in all their games, not just conference games) to make sure such an unbeaten team doesn't get shout out behind a one-loss SEC team, but that's it. You lose a game, you take your chances.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
VA Husker Fan said:
Stanford wasn't the best team out there either, nor was Okie St. Stanford got blasted at home by Oregon. Okie St got beaten by freaking Iowa St. Why reward those teams for getting beaten by a lesser team? If LSU loses a couple games, somehow Alabama would be deserving, but since LSU swept through their schedule, including Oregon, you penalize Alabama? Makes no sense. How it that playing it out on the field?

I'd accept an automatic spot for an unbeaten major college champ (in all their games, not just conference games) to make sure such an unbeaten team doesn't get shout out behind a one-loss SEC team, but that's it. You lose a game, you take your chances.
Click to expand...
Well, undefeated or not playing a charmin soft schedule like Boise St shouldn't get you in a NC game.

Like Alabama......playing Arkansas, Penn State, LSU (twice), Tennessee, Auburn & Florida is not the same thing (at all) as playing a murderer's row like New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado St, UNLV, Tulsa, Toledo, etc.

Teams like Boise St play essentaiily a "one" or at most "two" game schedule (Georgia/TCU). But if you insist they get in anyway, let's join the Big least and cruise to the playoff every single year too.

 
When I said major, I meant one of the 6 major conferences, to get a guarantee if you're unbeaten. Mids are eligible but not guaranteed.

 
VA Husker Fan said:
Stanford wasn't the best team out there either, nor was Okie St. Stanford got blasted at home by Oregon. Okie St got beaten by freaking Iowa St. Why reward those teams for getting beaten by a lesser team? If LSU loses a couple games, somehow Alabama would be deserving, but since LSU swept through their schedule, including Oregon, you penalize Alabama? Makes no sense. How it that playing it out on the field?

I'd accept an automatic spot for an unbeaten major college champ (in all their games, not just conference games) to make sure such an unbeaten team doesn't get shout out behind a one-loss SEC team, but that's it. You lose a game, you take your chances.
Click to expand...
I get what you're saying but it's a fact that Alabama had their shot to take out LSU in the regular season and they failed. They should not have been given a second "bite" at the apple.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top